Display Analysis

ASUS offers two display options with the Strix G513QY, with a 300 Hz 1920x1080 option targeting the sRGB gamut, and a 165 Hz 2560x1440 panel with P3 gamut coverage. Both displays are IPS variants, and both offer 3 ms response times. AMD shipped us the 1920x1080 unit, which will be tested here.

AMD offers FreeSync Premium, meaning variable refresh rate is supported, preventing screen tearing and stuttering, and much like NVIDIA’s Advanced Optimus, the discrete GPU can be turned on and off without requiring a system reboot, while still allowing for variable refresh rate, so that is a major win.

Matte finish leaves a haze-like appearance on the pixels

The 1920x1080 panel targets the sRGB gamut, which is the normal color gamut for a Windows PC. The higher resolution offering goes for the much wider gamut of P3-D65, meaning it can achieve deeper colors, however with the lack of a system-wide color management system in Windows 10 generally means that is more of a detriment than an advantage.

The display offers a matte finish, with no touch options, which is pretty much par for the course in the gaming notebook space. Touch controls are just not required, since most people will use a keyboard and mouse. The matte coating does leave a hazy finish on the display, which means the images are not quite as crisp as they would be on a display with a clear coating, but it can help with usability to have a matte coating in a room with light glare.

To test the display capabilities and accuracy, we use Portrait Display’s Calman software with a custom workflow. The X-Rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter is used for brightness and contrast readings, and the X-Rite i1Pro 2 spectrophotometer is used for color accuracy tests.

Brightness and Contrast

Display - Max Brightness

Display - Black Levels

Display - Contrast Ratio

ASUS advertises the display as a 300-nit panel, and we measured 297.3 nits, which is pretty much right on the money. The contrast ratio is good, but not great, at 1186:1, measured at maximum brightness. Considering high-refresh rate panels used to be the domain of TN only, it is great to see the industry has been able to drive IPS panels such as this, relegating the TN to mostly a footnote in history in the PC space. For those that are curious, the display will go down to about 13 nits brightness at its lowest setting.


Portrait Displays Calman

Display - Grayscale Accuracy

The panel in the review unit most certainly skews towards blue, although the overall error level is reasonable. A few years ago, this same device almost certainly would have shipped with a TN display with error levels around 10-12, so only seeing 3.8 average error is reasonable. ASUS does not hardware calibrate its panels, unlike say MSI, who offers a TrueColor application to choose and modify the color settings. Gamma is almost perfect on this display though, despite the white point being incorrect.


Portrait Displays Calman

Display - Gamut Accuracy

The gamut test checks the primary and secondary colors at the 100% level, and the ASUS display does indeed hit the sRGB gamut almost perfectly.


Portrait Displays Calman

Display - Saturation Accuracy

Unlike the gamut test, the saturation sweeps test all of the primary and secondary colors from 0% to 100% level at 4-bit increments. Other than Cyan, all of the colors are reasonably accurate considering this is not a calibrated display.

Gretag Macbeth

Portrait Displays Calman

Display - GMB Accuracy

The final test targets colors outside of the primary and secondary color axis, including the important skin tones. Although some of the colors, especially the grays, exceed the 3.0 error level that would be considered inaccurate, most of the colors do fall under 3.0, making the overall average 2.5, which is very reasonable.


Portrait Displays Calman

Finally, the colorchecker is a visual representation of the testing done, with the targeted color on the bottom, and the actual color the display produced on the top. This is a relative result, as any errors in your own display will skew this result, but really, the ASUS panel is quite accurate with the exception of the extra blue levels in the grays.

Display conclusion

Considering this is not a calibrated display, it achieved quite good color accuracy, and really the only miss was the grayscale results which would be able to be adjusted using an ICC profile if a user wanted to make one. It is unfortunate that ASUS does not offer this built into hardware though, as ICC profiles generally do not work very well with games.

The other side of the coin is that this is a 300 Hz display, at just 1920x1080. Even with the massive Radeon RX 6800M, pretty much no game is going to hit anywhere near 300 FPS since the GPU is always bound by the CPU, making most of the refresh waste unnecessary. The 165 Hz QHD panel option would be the better choice, although it does target the P3 color gamut, which brings its own issues to the table on Windows PCs.

GPU Performance Battery Life and Charge Time
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • eva02langley - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    Not interested into anything not 1440p, IPS, 144Hz, top color accuracy and Freesync... AMD promised that on stage yesterday... WTH does Asus smoke...!!!???
  • eva02langley - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    Even you guys admit that ASUS SCREWED up not going 1440p. How awesome... ASUS was already on my blacklist for the disaster the G73JH-A1 was... but this is just ridiculous, they are joke as system implementer. They proved it by their incompetence.

    "AMD targets the Radeon RX 6800M at 2560x1440, and for good reason. As we have seen, in pretty much every title, it is completely CPU bound at 1920x1080, even with the newest Ryzen 9 5900HX as the processor. The synthetic tests, as well as the UHD resolution results, really prove this point.

    Although there is certainly a market where the 1920x1080 resolution is desired for the lowest latency, in this system, that panel is really too low of a resolution for such a powerful GPU, and it becomes wasted money spent."
  • eva02langley - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    Well, i just realized that there is a 1440p panel also... however this 1080p version should not even exist. A 1440p panel resolution can be scaled to 1080p if required... so what is the point? 300Hz??? In optimal gaming scenario at 300Hz constant, you gain 4ms of response.

    As a comparative, 4ms is the equivalent of ONE FPS.... from 250Hz-251Hz... only idiots will defend this stupidity.
  • eva02langley - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    Ah, I made a mistake in the calculation. The difference is more in the realm of 50 FPS at a 120Hz basis. So basically, 120Hz to 170Hz is the same amount of time from 144Hz to 300Hz.

    Makes more sense. But still, 50Hz from 120Hz is worth the same than 144Hz to 300Hz. Meaning those 50Hz are worth those 156Hz. This is because FPS are not a linear factor and a ratio.
  • Spazosaurus - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    Perhaps the next generation of gpus will have enough power to render even the most demanding titles at 2k60 baseline, at which point I'll happily embrace 2k laptop displays. Native 1080p,to me, looks much better than 1080p on a 2k display. Personally I prefer a lower res native display so that I can crank up the quality settings. Once I'm over 60fps, it does not matter if I'm cpu bound or not. I'm not going to lower a native 2k display to 1080p to get 60fps.
  • Spunjji - Friday, June 4, 2021 - link

    This GPU isn't going to have any problems rendering any modern titles in 1440p at more than 60fps - at least, not unless you use RT...
  • DanaGoyette - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    I initially thought: ooh, real home, pageup, pagedown, and end keys... But nope, the right column is media playback control keys, and those text cursor control keys are hidden behind Fn.

    I guess I'm sticking with my HP Omen.
  • Pacinamac - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    Competition is the best thing for the consumer. Doubt I'll get an AMD system (I'm a video editor who uses quicksync) but happy to see them doing so well.
  • jenesuispasbavard - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    I'm confused with these GPU tests. Comparisons to the competition at only 1080p? Only this laptop's performance at 4K (no comparisons)? 3DMark Fire Strike - which is *eight* years old now; and no Time Spy or Port Royal? 3DMark total score and not GPU score?
  • ksec - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - link

    Why did they not call it Amdvantage is beyond me.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now